At first realignment theory seemed to explain much about American politics. It was an exciting pattern: these upheavals occurred almost like clockwork: once every 28 to 36 years or so. Why did the pattern hold? The political system was a relic of the 18th century: it was designed to make change difficult. Once a coalition got in power, it would tend to stay there. But the American society was remarkably vibrant, and its economic advancement was astonishing. Over time, the issues that caused one election were solved or faded. New issues arose, and new generations of Americans had different concerns in their ever-evolving economic and social environment. The entrenched political powers resisted such change, but events would overtake them. Finally, a crisis of some sort would lead to a change in partisan alignments with the major parties.
This pattern seemed to work for American political history up to the 1960's. If the pattern followed, then the nation was due for a major realignment in the late 1960's or early 1970's.
This realignment never happened; or if it did, it looked different than the others. Because the 1960's saw the beginnings of a shift of Southern Conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republicans. But this shift did not occur in one election; it was not truly complete until the late 1980's at the earliest. The election of Nixon heralded not only this Southern strategy by the Republicans, but also an era of divided government. From 1969 until 2001, the only years of unified party government were from 1977-81 (the Carter years), and from 1993-95 (first two years of Clinton). Students of realignment theory became discouraged as Reagan became elected in 1980, but without Republicans capturing the House of Representatives (although note that there were still plenty of Southern Conservative Democrats who today would run as Republicans). Some thought that 1994 was a realigning election, as Republicans triumphed wildly in an off-year (non-presidential year) election. But with Clinton gaining re-election in 1996, the pattern of electoral realignment seemed to be dead. Instead it looked like gradual change--one election was not necessarily more important that another.
In the meantime, the media had picked up on the term realignment, but did not use it in way that academic scholars did. The term had lost its theoretical significance.
The election of Barack Obama leads me to question whether or not realignment still lives. Back in that 1991 book, Burnham claimed that 1968 was indeed a realigning election, but that it was a different type of realignment. Each critical election was about a different thing. 1832 was about widening the franchise and representing the common man. 1860 was about slavery in the territories. 1896 was about which would prevail: democracy or capitalism. 1932 was about solving the Great Depression. Burnham claimed that 1968 was about an increase in distrust in government, and cited a study that showed this disaffection.
Most (but not all) critical elections were associated with a crisis. 1860 reflected a growing divide over free labor in the North, and slave labor in the South, with a conflict over whether one would prevail in the Western territories. 1896 occurred during one of the worst depressions in history. The Great Depression was the crisis leading to 1932.
That brings us to 1968, one of the most tumultuous years in American history. The Vietnam was had become a morass, leading Lyndon Johnson to decline to seek reelection. Americans felt they could not trust their president. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. So was Bobby Kennedy. There were riots in the streets, riots outside the Democratic National Convention, and an immense split over race issues within the Democratic Party. The various crises led to an increase in cynicism, and a decrease in trust in the government.
The decline in trust in government as a major theme pervaded the Reagan era. After all, Reagan claimed that "government is not the solution, government is the problem." A belief in the sanctity of unregulated markets was a hallmark of this ideology, run rampant in political statements during the Gingrich/Bush era, even if actions by Republicans in power did not reflect consistency with this ideology.
If you think 1968 was indeed a realigning election, the election of Barack Obama comes right on schedule to vindicate realignment theory. It has been forty years. And if this is the case, we may be on the verge of a Democratic era, just as we have been in an era more or less dominated by a conservative ideology.
Of course we cannot yet know if this will be the case; all we can say now is that it is possible. We can examine the changes in the coalition basis of the Democratic party. For example, we can note the generational change in young voters and Latinos that shifted significantly to the Democrats. We can also examine ideology. Obama represents, I suspect, a new pragmatism towards economic and social issues. Having taught at the home of Milton Friedman, he is versed in both the virtues of the market place, and also where and when markets fail. He is steeped in American Constitutional history. He thus will have an opportunity to reconstruct important aspects of American politics, understanding all the way what he is doing.
All of this is to say, that the organizational imperatives of the Obama campaign are potentially epoch-making. It is a new kind of party organization that he has built, and that he I am sure intends to maintain. It is a political juggernaut on his personality, that he will likely try to institutionalize, so that it lasts. The work of people who create, and who read TPM are part of this institutionalization. It is a new way of getting informed, of getting active, of organizing and supporting each other. In the grand scope of American party politics, this is an exciting thing to observe and at the same time to take part in.
Realignment may live. And we are all part of it.